Apologies for this tardy response; I've been on holiday, and offline,
for the past two weeks.
On Fri, 2007-12-21 at 13:37 -0500, NightStrike wrote:
> > > I redirect you to the mingw-64 public group, where it is more
> > > likly, that somebody can help you.
> > There is absolutely no reason to redirect the another list. This
> > alternate list is not sanctioned by MinGW. Please keep discussion
> > of MinGW on the mingw-users list.
> > Kai, we've asked you via the mingw-dvlpr list to submit patches to
> > incorporate your 64bit support. There is no reason to have created
> > another project.
> Flies and honey, Earnie. Flies and honey. Kai has his reasons for
> doing what he does,
I'm sure he does; what a pity that he didn't bother to mention them,
when he went ahead and created his unsanctioned fork, usurping the MinGW
project name in the process, and without the common courtesy of even a
modicum of discussion. I am not at all surprised that Earnie feels
aggrieved at Kai's action, especially given all the support we offered,
to assist Kai in progressing his 64-bit development, *within* the
infrastructure of the MinGW project itself -- the very action of
creating the fork seems to me like a direct snub.
> and I am a part of that project.
as you also are a member of this.
> Kai has been a wonderful person to work with,
and you could have done so within the established environment of *this*
project, *without* the unsanctioned, and unnecessary fork. We would
have been more than willing to accommodate you, and all of your project
contributors; you only had to ask.
> [he has been] completely understanding of my
> knowledge level. He helped me get from knowing nothing about this
> stuff at all to actually creating the whole build system for the
> project. That's an awesome thing, and it serves as an example of the
> kind of good person he is, if you'd just take the time to listen to
> what he has to say.
We'd have loved to; *he* chose not to share his thoughts with us.
> You say that there is absolutely no reason to have a separate list.
> Earnie, that isn't helpful.
On the contrary, there is every reason *not* to have a separate list.
We ourselves have already experienced this, through having too many
lists of our own; the fragmentation dilutes the breadth of experience
and expertise on each individual list, and weakens the list. Today, we
have retained three lists, and I am still not convinced that we would
not be better served, by consolidating those three into just one.
> We have our reasons, otherwise it
> wouldn't have started in the first place.
What a pity you did not share those here, in the first place.
> No one sat down and said,
> "Hmm... how best can we anger those MinGW guys?"
Really? Yet, Kai ignored our offers of support in the first place, and
needlessly created your forked project. Now, you are coercing our list
subscribers away to your dissociated list; seems to me like that is
*exactly* what you are trying to achieve.
> It came out of
> necessity for a variety of reasons, and you'd understand that if you
> approached this whole thing differently. Until you learn how to
> properly ask the right questions (things like, "Kai, can you explain
> why you forked a new project? I don't understand, and I'd like to
We *did* ask those; we were not granted the courtesy of a reply.
> until you learn how to respect the other people involved...
> well, work can't just stop. We found a place where we can work
> unconstrained, and hopefully at some point in the future, everything
> else can be resolved. Until then, please rethink how you are
> approaching this.
There is absolutely no question of Earnie, or anyone else associated
with this project, not respecting those involved. In fact, if anything
the reverse is the case; we bent over backwards to offer our support,
and our overtures were snubbed. The offer remains open, to you and all
of your project contributors; integrate your work into a common project
infrastructure with us, and we will do whatever is necessary to